Rich Lowry at NR responds to anti-Trumper David French's response to his column with When Did It Become the FBI’s Job to Act as a Check and Balance to the President?
. . . Again, this is the role of Adam Schiff and Co., not the FBI. I’m sure I’ll disagree with how the congressional Democrats handle these matters going forward. But there’s no doubt under our system about the legitimacy of their taking them up. The same can’t be said, and shouldn’t be said by constitutional conservatives, of how the FBI conducted itself after the firing of James Comey.Ace: Watergate by Any Other Name: A Blistering Take on Obama's Minions -- Clapper, Brennan, Comey, Lynch, Yates, McCabe, Etc. -- Breaking the Law to Target a Rival Presidential Candidate With an FBI Criminal Investigation That They Pretended Was Not a Criminal
They pretended it wasn't a criminal investigation because the law forbade them from conducting a criminal investigation, given that they had no actual crime to investigate.Dr. John at Flopping Aces: Why didn’t the FBI open Counter Intelligence investigations into these Russian assets?
So they falsely -- illegally -- framed it as a "counterintelligence" investigation, but this was always a sham; the entire project was to find a crime that they could then launch a criminal investigation over.
The liberal media is portraying this admission that the FBI broke the law as some kind of vindication that their conspiracy theories must be true,because, hey, why would people break so many laws to investigate someone for a crime unless they were rilly rilly sure they'd find a crime eventually?
. . .
In other words, they broke the law, and they deliberately broke the law, and they concealed the truth of what they were doing (pro-tip: righteous men do not have to scheme to "frame" their actions in a light that appears to be legal; they can simply state what they are doing without pretense) and now the left, and David French obviously, are praising them for having been cunning criminals and coupists.
Update: Oh, here's a surprise. The FBI continues refusing to release coupist James A Baker's Congressional testimony while, get this, leaking helpful-sounding parts of it to their media friends who they know will give it the right spin.
But here’s the thing. If they could open a CI investigation for this kind of flimsy grounds, what about some real solid basis for doing so when it involved others?Ed Morrissey at Hot Air, Senate Dems (And The Media) Wonder: Just How Much Of The Mueller Report Would Barr Release? and if they don't get what they want, House Judiciary Chair Says They’ll Subpoena Mueller Report If Necessary AP, Waiting for final Mueller report? It may be short on detail. Like my mama always said, if you don't have anything bad to say about someone, the least you can do is shut up.
For example, Barack Obama promised Vladimir Putin that he (Obama) would be more flexible for Putin after the 2012 election.
More flexible for Vlad? That sounds pretty serious to me. it sounds as though Obama was acting as a Russian asset! One of the first things he did as President was pull the missile shield from Poland to please Putin.
Did a single democrat find that objectionable? Did the FBI think a CI investigation was called for?
In 2010, while his wife was Secretary of State, Bill Clinton went to Vladimir Putin’s home in Russia. The next day Clinton gives a cup of coffee speech and walks away with $500,000. Since they file taxes jointly, that means the money effectively went into her pocket as well.
The next thing you know, $140 million flows into the Clinton Foundation and 20% control of US uranium falls into the hands of Vladimir Putin.
Sounds a lot like the Clinton’s were acting as Russian lobbyists- Russian assets.
Did the FBI think a CI investigation was called for?
Justice Department regulations require only that Mueller give the attorney general a confidential report that explains the decisions to pursue or to decline prosecutions. That could be as simple as a bullet point list or as fulsome as a report running hundreds of pages.Also from Ed, WSJ: Cohen Defrauded Trump On Cooked Reimbursement Claims
Mueller has given no guidance on which of those it will be. Asked repeatedly over the past year, Mueller spokesman Peter Carr has pointed back to the regulations but otherwise declined to elaborate.
He said he envisions two reports — and only one for congressional and public consumption.
Barr said Tuesday he takes seriously the “shall be confidential” part of the regulations governing Mueller’s report, noting that Justice Department protocol says internal memos explaining charging decisions shouldn’t be released.
Barr said that after Mueller turns in his report, he will draft a second one for the chair and ranking members of the House and Senate Judiciary committees. But here again, the regulations provide little guidance for what such a report would say.
The attorney general is required only to say the investigation has concluded and describe or explain any times when he or Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein decided an action Mueller proposed “was so inappropriate or unwarranted” that it shouldn’t be pursued.
Today, the Wall Street Journal helped deliver a message — turnabout is fair play.Oh, and apparently the money was to rig an on line poll, for what that's worth. Thank you for being a friend. What a great witness he'll make!
A former contractor for Donald Trump’s public-relations efforts claims that Cohen stiffed him for all but $13,000 of a $50,000 bill, while federal prosecutors show that Trump reimbursed Cohen for the entire $50K.
Gee, I wonder where the WSJ got this information? Hmmmm….
Jazz Shaw, The Real Reason Trump Didn’t Release Details Of His Calls With Putin. Hey, remember those times that Trump's conversations with foreign leaders were leaked? That's why.
So this is helpful: Giuliani doesn’t deny Trump campaign may have colluded with Russia - President’s attorney says he only denies Trump himself colluded.
Linked at Pirate's Cove in the weekly Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup and links.